The landscape of Alzheimer's treatment may be shifting as cost and accessibility concerns mount around newly approved amyloid-targeting drugs. A head-to-head statistical comparison reveals that a specialized nutritional intervention could deliver comparable or superior functional benefits at a fraction of the complexity and expense. The analysis examined effect sizes from pivotal trials of lecanemab, donanemab, and Fortasyn Connect (marketed as Souvenaid), a multi-nutrient formula containing omega-3 fatty acids, phospholipids, choline, and B-vitamins. Using the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes scale, researchers calculated Cohen's d values of -0.34 for lecanemab, -0.33 for donanemab, and -0.52 for Souvenaid, indicating no statistically significant differences between interventions. More striking were the projected gains in instrumental activities of daily living: Souvenaid demonstrated an estimated 27 months of preserved independence compared to 10 months for lecanemab and 8 months for donanemab. This comparison challenges the assumption that high-tech pharmaceutical approaches necessarily outperform targeted nutrition in neurodegenerative disease. However, critical limitations merit consideration. The study designs varied significantly across trials, making direct comparisons inherently imperfect. Souvenaid trials focused on prodromal Alzheimer's patients, potentially representing a more treatment-responsive population than the broader early-stage cohorts in drug trials. The analysis relies on statistical modeling rather than direct comparative studies. While these findings suggest nutritional interventions deserve serious consideration in early Alzheimer's management, they represent preliminary evidence rather than definitive proof of superiority. The results nonetheless highlight the need for more nuanced treatment algorithms that weigh efficacy against safety, accessibility, and patient quality of life.